"refuted?"   O'rly?   First they start off defining evolution as "moleclues to man" despite what evolution actually states. That further proves my point about strawman. They don't discuss what evolution actually is. Furthermore, the whole notion that increasing capacity and adaption is not increasing complexity is insane. If I take a simple structure, modify it to form something more complex, is that not a change in complexity? The whole idea that modifying DNA, changing it, removing and adding isn't actually changing anything is retarded.   And they are separating macro from micro. That's an invalid argument given that macro is nothing more then the aggregate of micro. A billion tiny changes makes a few large ones.   The second idiotic article cites Natural genetic engineering. Despite there being absolutely no evidence of this occuring anywhere.
Label: Sarcastic